Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Big Ben on drafting a QB and roster building


NAS
 Share

Recommended Posts

Speaking about Steelers

I would not draft a quarterback for at least two to three years. That's just my opinion. I think as a GM, if I'm GMing this team ... the issue that I see with a lot of teams is they get a quarterback and they try and build around that quarterback. I think it should be the other way around. I think you should build a team and put your quarterback in it. Okay? It happened to me. They had a great football team. They plugged me in. We had a veteran group. It just works. It works better than trying to grab a quarterback and be, okay, we're gonna build around this quarterback, because then it's gonna take you four or five years to build around that quarterback. He's probably gonna look like poo up to it and then you're like, is he really our guy? is he not our guy?" 

I agree with him. Only downside  is if you build too good of a roster you’re not drafting high enough to get your  QB

  • Pie 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NAS said:

Speaking about Steelers

I would not draft a quarterback for at least two to three years. That's just my opinion. I think as a GM, if I'm GMing this team ... the issue that I see with a lot of teams is they get a quarterback and they try and build around that quarterback. I think it should be the other way around. I think you should build a team and put your quarterback in it. Okay? It happened to me. They had a great football team. They plugged me in. We had a veteran group. It just works. It works better than trying to grab a quarterback and be, okay, we're gonna build around this quarterback, because then it's gonna take you four or five years to build around that quarterback. He's probably gonna look like poo up to it and then you're like, is he really our guy? is he not our guy?" 

I agree with him. Only downside  is if you build too good of a roster you’re not drafting high enough to get your  QB

The Mannings were the last two highly drafted qbs to win a SB with the team that drafted them.

 Nobody else taken in top 10 won the Super Bowl with their original team. Stafford did it but after a trade.

  • Pie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, csx said:

The Mannings were the last two highly drafted qbs to win a SB with the team that drafted them.

 Nobody else taken in top 10 won the Super Bowl with their original team. Stafford did it but after a trade.

Does Mahomes not count as highly drafted? He was top 10.  

But I generally agree.  Drafting a QB in the top five is not usually successful.  QB is such a crapshoot anyway.  

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Davidson Deac II said:

Does Mahomes not count as highly drafted? He was top 10.  

But I generally agree.  Drafting a QB in the top five is not usually successful.  QB is such a crapshoot anyway.  

Yeah maybe. Borderline. I was thinking he was 13th for some reason.

Trading up to get a 10 ish pick is nowhere near as risky as #1 or 2

 

Building a solid roster also puts you in the position of being where the Manning, Brady, Stafford want to go to win a or another SB.

Edited by csx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, NAS said:

Speaking about Steelers

I would not draft a quarterback for at least two to three years. That's just my opinion. I think as a GM, if I'm GMing this team ...  the issue that I see with a lot of teams is they get a quarterback and they try and build around that quarterback. I think it should be the other way around. I think you should build a team and put your quarterback in it.  Okay? It happened to me. They had a great football team. They plugged me in. We had a veteran group. It just works. It works better than trying to grab a quarterback and be, okay, we're gonna build around this quarterback, because then it's gonna take you four or five years to build around that quarterback. He's probably gonna look like poo up to it and then you're like, is he really our guy? is he not our guy?" 

I agree with him. Only downside  is if you build too good of a roster you’re not drafting high enough to get your  QB

"the issue that I see with a lot of teams is they get a quarterback and they try and build around that quarterback. I think it should be the other way around. I think you should build a team and put your quarterback in it. "

Bingo.  I've been saying this for years now.  I'm not saying NFL GMs are idiots, but they get stuck in an old school of thought and have a hard time thinking outside out the old paradigm.  Draft the QB, no matter what! If you are at #1, I get it...you have to shoot your shot, especially if there's a legit franchise guy there.  However, I keep going back to the '23 draft, we had zero business taking a QB especially at #9 and what it took to get to #1.  That should have been a foundational draft to set up for a QB in the '24 draft.  The roster was NOT ready yet.  The Steelers are far enough back that they need to stay out of it in round one, maybe take a stab in the middle rounds for a QB and maybe strike gold. Obviously this would be a project guy year one and not starting.

The QB position is the hardest for a rookie to adjust to.  Why in the world would anyone think dropping said rookie into a dumpster fire is going to work out well?  It's just common sense to me.  

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh. You don't necessarily trade a king's ransom for a draft pick, but you should strike when the opportunity presents itself. It's all about scouting and taking the BPA. You don't pass up on a viable QB---your guy who's just sitting there--just because it's year one to three and your team has holes.  Just build your team.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, TD alt said:

Meh. You don't necessarily trade a king's ransom for a draft pick, but you should strike when the opportunity presents itself. It's all about scouting and taking the BPA. You don't pass up on a viable QB---your guy who's just sitting there--just because it's year one to three and your team has holes.  Just build your team.

I mean this is the problem with how we tried to build. We took a team with some holes and traded away assets for a QB...

1 hour ago, Shocker said:

The team around Cam was very good.  Unlike Bryce.

Cam elevated the team when he was drafted. It was not a very good team. Remember it'd not done particularly well in 2009 and was atrocious in 2010 - because of QB... We added good TEs but we needed a QB to get them the ball.

We also didn't need to trade current weapons and future picks for Cam... We just had him there.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it’s probably easier to find a QB once you have your team built and your system established. You know exactly what you need your QB to do and it narrows down your choices. So much of early QB problems revolve around fitting into the system or signifigantly adjusting the system to fit the QB. Plus you have that rookie cap space to work with, or if it's a FA bridge QB or reclamation project like Darnold or Baker, maybe you get lucky and catch lightning in a bottle. Dynasties are rare. Have the team built to take your shot in a 2-3 years window. 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you have a hall of fame QB, I think defenses win champtionships and I'd follow the Seattle model.  Even the best QBs can't win without a good team and our defense is a couple players away from being elite and what I'd focus on if I'm Dan Morgan.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shotgun said:

He's right, we should have never drafted Cam. 

Yeah you have teams that turn around quickly with players like Burrow (when healthy) and Allen. The Bears and Pats just took top QBs 2 years ago. Yeah it’s easier for the QB when they go to better rosters later, but the QB needy teams are typically at the top of the draft. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, jtm said:

Unless you have a hall of fame QB, I think defenses win champtionships and I'd follow the Seattle model.  Even the best QBs can't win without a good team and our defense is a couple players away from being elite and what I'd focus on if I'm Dan Morgan.  

I agree…Defense and running the football….old Foxy had it right.
Unfortunately the new NFL often negates great defense with questionable rules and subjective officiating.  Player safety important but you have to let them play. 

 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It all sounds great. The only unknowns are injuries and how they will need to be addressed. Horn has a history as does the newly added Jaelen Phillips and Cooker has yet to play an entire season as well. And then there are the Ikey's - totally unexpecteded injuries that put a major wrench in your plans. I do think its a great plan though.
    • If we pay Bryce like a franchise QB we're completely and utterly buttfuged.
    • In my view, the realistic expectation for this team to compete will start 2027.  At that time, I think we could be looking at the following (this is HIGHLY speculative):   QB:  You know, Bryce.  I am not a fan, but they don't ask me.  But there is reason for hope--and here it is.  Bryce will be entering his prime.  Since we are likely to pay him, there will be changes that I include throughout this exercise--I realistically speculate on what they are going to do with Bryce and then I realistically speculate on what means in terms of the cap and other positions. Bryce HAS IMPROVED.  The idea is that if you give him more weapons and protection, that will continue.  His career:   At this rate, if his growth continues, by 2027 we should expect nearly 30 TDs and about 12 Interceptions and a Rating of about 98.  His completion percentage should settle at 65-66% or so.  If that happens, you can win with it. The following stats demonstrate how the Panthers will be able to afford it (and re-sign Ickey) My guess is they will require about $60m per year. This is why rookies who can play are important.  It also helps us see the blueprint.  You may disagree, but this is the cruel realities of the salary cap. Robert Hunt:  Cut post June 1 and save $19m.  Who do you replace him with?  Ickey. Tershawn Wharton:  Cutting him saves nearly $15m.  We should all hope to see Aaron Hall (UDFA) make the roster and play well.  Regardless, this is a position we would likely have to address in the next draft. Trevin Moehrig:  Cutting Moehrig as the starting SS saves this team $16.5m.   Ransom will be on year 3 of a cheap rookie deal and should be more than ready to take the reins.  their styles are similar.  Furthermore, FS Wheatley (R, 4th round) will be starting. Taylor Moton:  So much depends on his knee, but I have an idea that he can play another 3 years.  extending him could save the team about $5m per year.  Cutting him outright would save the team about $21m. In the most drastic situation, we have to cut Moton and the other three players mentioned.   We would need (in all likelihood) a starting DT and RT.  It is possible that the DE would be addressed, but Wharton's production (so far) could be equaled by a rookie.  Look for a cut free agent and a 2027 draft pick here.  If you cut Moton, you save $21m, and that would be the only big hole to fill.  Having Ickey at RG gives you some depth at T, and Ickey could be the guy.  T could be pick in the 2027 draft (first round), fwiw.  It saves you $21m while costing you $5m, for example. We get younger, creating a core of Freeling, Hecht, and the RT first rounder in 2027) along with Ekownu (second contract in the $15m range, and Lewis, whose contract would be in the $16m range if not extended.)  The OL cuts (Hunt, Moton) would save $40m.  The OL would get younger and still solid with veterans at G.   By cutting Wharton (no brainer if his play stays the same) and Moehrig (good player--but we have Ransom on a rookie contract who would not be that much of a drop off--if any) in addition to Hunt and Moton, we would save over $70m in cap room. We would be able to give Bryce bag  and we would have enough to re-sign Ickey (if the knee is not too risky) to a Guard contract (probably at a discount, coming off that injury).  Furthermore, we could add a RT in the draft (or a RG if Ickey moves to RT) and that would be the only large hole to fill. Correct my logic if you see issues-- On defense, in addition to the aforementioned, Scott ($2m contract) is out, replaced by a 4th round rookie contract. CB Jackson's contract ($7.8m) expires and he is (possibly) replaced by a rookie contract.  At Edge, patrick Jones II's $10m contract expires and he is likely a reserve, and his role is absorbed by Phillips, Scourton, Princely, and possible an UDFA like Isaiah Smith or a 2027 draft pick.   These productive developmental players over the past 2 drafts will pay huge dividends.  On paper, I see the team getting much younger and possibly better while cutting nearly $100m and reallocating that money to get more production.          
×
×
  • Create New...